crackheads of the day #60

even more Tenderloin Housing Clinic crackheads in Mid Market, behind 1035 Market. The guy in the brown shirt once told me he’s a retired auto worker from Detroit. He wasn’t a crackhead when he moved here. He is now tho

Randy Shaw has churned out more crackheads than anyone else i know

Continue reading »

Posted in crackheads of the day, mid market, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

crackheads of the day #59

Yet more Tenderloin Housing Clinic residents and Randy Shaw’s clients doing the crack thing in Mid Market, behind 1035 market

The only thing about Mid Market that people are confused about is where this crap is coming from and the extent to which Randy Shaw contributes to it.
Continue reading »

Posted in crackheads of the day, mid market, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Randy Shaw inadvertently targets his own clients

from the oops department at Beyondchron

Continue reading »

Posted in Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged | Leave a comment

crackheads of the day #58

San Francisco Mid Market Theater and Entertainment District Benevolent Improvement Society showcasing science, movies and cartoon animated film

The Einstein

Continue reading »

Posted in crackheads of the day, mid market, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Turning Mid Market workers into crackheads

This is an example of how some of the non profits are actually turning neighboring businesses in Mid Market into crackheads

Meet Italo Gomez. he used to make picture frames for paintings and ran his own picture framing shop at 1019 Market. He was married and had a nice car and successful business in Mid Market, San Francisco

Continue reading »

Posted in 6th street, film, mid market, SF politics, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Board of Supervisors, Non Profit funding and workers rights

On April 18, 2012, workers from non profits went before the board of supervisors to ask for pay raises. On May 1st, 2012, we remind people of the non profits who have trampled over workers rights

the whole story and the main page for this is here

Continue reading »

Posted in SF politics, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How the THC’s BeyondChron gets around the Prohibition on Political Activities in San Francisco

by Rita O’Flynn

The Tenderloin Housing Clinic is a tax-exempt non-for-profit which is prohibited by the IRS from engaging in political activities. San Francisco gets around this by stating in its contracts that “No funds appropriated by the City and County of San Francisco FOR THIS AGREEMENT may be expended…” on political activities.

The Controller’s Office recently did a financial analysis of the THC in response to the embezzlement conviction of its former employee. The Controller’s Office has somehow determined that no funds appropriated by the City and County of San Francisco are used to support BeyondChron, which is an LLC of the THC, published by the THC, and is edited by two full-time employees of the THC. Basically, Shaw’s salary does not contain any provisions for his work on BeyondChron and Paul Hogarth’s salary only contains a small provision to work on BeyondChron. The THC claims it used profits from its legal division and the Galvin Apartments to fund BeyondChron and the portion of Hogarth’s salary for his BeyondChron activities.

The problem with this is that the legal services division is primarily funded by CCSF and there are contractual provisions regarding the use of profits from CCSF-funded programs (AKA: Program Income). These provisions are restrictive in terms of how program income can be used. Specifically, the contracts state, “…provisions of this agreement shall apply to expenditures of program income”. The grants from MOH and the HSA for legal services have no provisions for the use of any profits to fund BeyondChron and the most recent version of the THC’s audited financial report (FY 2010) the THC indicates that rental revenue, including that from the Galvin Apartments are used to pay for management and operating the property” without ever mentioning allocations for BeyondChron.

If you read Beyondchron today, you will see that Shaw spent a bit of time at the Planning Commission yesterday. It was his intention to speak in favor of CPMC’s proposed facility on Van Ness but apparently he had to leave before he could do so because the meeting ran from 10 AM to 8 PM. While the contracts with the City require the THC to keep appropriate records to document compliance with the political activities restrictions, these don’t seem to be disclosable under the public records act and the City Attorney assigned to SOTF has fought such disclosure on behalf of the Controller’s Office in front of the SOTF. The public is forced to rely on the findings of the Controller’s Office without knowing what these findings are actually based on. There is no clear, non-influenced, independent way of knowing how Shaw’s activities yesterday (or at any other time) were actually funded.

The City’s current contracts with non-for-profits leave the door wide open for conflict of interest and raise serious ethical issues regarding the elected Board of Supervisor approval of grants and budgets, including line item restoration, for non-for-profits that engage in political activities. Quite simply, the City should not provide any funding to any non-for-profit that engages in political activities regardless of the non-for-profit’s source of funding for its political activities.


The prohibition on political activities by non profits is documented in the THC grant agreement here. The IRS in 2007 issued this reminder to non profits not to engage in political activity and further IRS clarification on political activity for non profits (PDF). Numerous examples are cited on what is OK and what is not for a non profit, including running websites. The IRS also points out that even personal opinions are subject to the rules if they are published under the umbrella of the tax exempt organization. The IRS also doesn’t make a distinction of a subsidiary like Beyondchron that the city of San Francisco has apparently been doing and considers it to be one and the same. It is the IRS that grants the non profit status in the first place, not the city

The Tenderloin Housing Clinic 2010 federal 990 tax form lists Beyondchron as a disregarded entity

A disregarded entity is a business entity that is separate from its owner but which chooses to be disregarded as separate from the business owner for federal tax purposes. The IRS says,

“If a “disregarded entity” is owned by an individual, it is treated as a sole proprietor. If the “disregarded entity” is owned any any other entity, it is treated as a branch or division of its owner.”

A sole proprietorship is not a disregarded entity, because the business is not separate from the owner.

Liability Issues for a Disregarded Entity
A disregarded entity is considered the same entity as the owner for tax purposes, but not for liability purposes. For more information on this subject, read this article in which attorney Robert Warwick discusses disregarded entity tax and liability issues

Tenderloin Housing Clinic Review 3-23-12

Tenderloin Housing Clinic 2010 Audited Financials1

Posted in SF politics, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Beach Motel shenanegans

Here’s the full video of what really happened at the San Francisco Board of Appeals, queued up to the correct starting time. KALW radio also has a story on it and Curbed also has a short article with comments from local residents up in arms over tenderloin Housing Clinic

What Tenderloin Housing Clinic and Randy Shaw isn’t telling the public is that newly found documents have emerged that suggest that the Beach Motel was always a tourist motel since the 60’s and that government bureaucracy and lost filings over the years have resulted in a zoning mess which Tenderloin Housing Clinic has been trying to capitalize on via lawsuits to convert the hotel into an permanent residential housing

The attorneys from both sides speak first and explain in detail exactly what’s going on. Andrew Zacks, representing the owner, Patel, speaks first, followed by Tenderloin Housing Clinic attorney Steve Collier, followed by public comment. The entire video is 1 hour 21 minutes (queued from four hours of video)

Get Microsoft Silverlight

full transcript after the jump Continue reading »

Posted in Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged | Leave a comment

Paul Hogarth lies

It’s somewhat amusing to see Paul Hogarth rehashing articles from 15 years ago in an attempt to discredit Matt Smith regarding this latest article in the Bay Citizen about affordable housing. Pretty tame stuff.

While Matt Smith might have opinions, and has made errors, he’s not actually making facts up

Paul Hogarth actually does make facts up, as in fabrication, which is far more egregious than anything Matt Smith ever did

GavinWatch Launch Party (Paul Hogarth)

In 1997 I was threatened with this letter by Tenderloin Housing Clinic, which Paul Hogarth is and was an employee of at that time. Shortly after that post, SFist posted this story about the threatened eviction. The problem now is that the comments are no longer available on SFist, probably because they started using disqus for comments after that

But the comments are still in the digital archive at Way Back Machine at

I work at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic. The City Attorney’s Office has told us that his cameras are illegal. And we are not — I repeat, we are not — evicting him right now.

[12] Posted by: paulhogarth | August 17, 2007 4:32 PM

Shortly after this was posted I received an email from Brock Keeling telling me that Noel Cisneros of ABC-7 news wanted to talk to me. It turns out that she wanted to talk to me about this specific statement that Paul Hogarth made on SFist. Noel had contacted the city attorneys office and they denied everything. Absolutely nobody had asked the city attorney about anything regarding the crime camera. Not Paul Hogarth, nor anyone at THC had ever contacted them about this issue, and the city attorney does not deal with such issues anyway (quite the opposite – the city attorney does deal with nuisance properties – which crime cameras help to document)

Paul Hogarth made it up.
Paul Hogarth lies
It was a complete fabrication.

Paul Hogarth is still an attorney registered at the State Bar of California and is currently the main eviction attorney for Tenderloin Housing Clinic

If you read the comments at SFist via the link, you’ll see that others were getting suspicious about that statement as well. Five years later, I’m still waiting for a retraction and apology from Hogarth. I’m not holding my breath

Posted in Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged | Leave a comment

How to really clean up mid Market and the Tenderloin

Holding land and building owners accountable for blight and nuisance in San Francisco. The real and legal and historical definition of nuisance and forcing property owners to be responsible for their own property

This has never been mentioned before in San Francisco, but it has in many other cities since 1989. This is probably because many of the people writing about blight are themselves landlords, and don’t want people to know about this, and instead try to divert attention to vacant buildings

The problems associated with Mid Market and the Tenderloin are not caused by vacant buildings themselves. Vacant buildings are merely a symptom of a deeper underlying problem caused by problem residents.

California and San Francisco have nuisance abatement laws which have recently been used by the city attorney to go after a liquor store in the Tenderloin. But this is just one single store and even the Bay Guardian is questioning the effectiveness of that. Look at the comments which mirror comments made for many years in publications

You are not going to ‘raze the tenderloin’ and start over. You are not going to bulldoze SRO’s because those are protected by law, but you can make the landlords do something about the nuisance that often originates from their own buildings


In 1989 a woman named Molly Wetzel and some neighbors went after a landlord on Francisco street in Berkeley because the place was a crack house, It’s very simple, except that it turned out to be one of the largest civil cases and awards in California history (unprecedented judgement against a landlord in California)


Molly Wetzel then went on to form the organization Safe Streets Now!, which has since expanded to many cities across the country in various forms, but especially in California because California has a few extra nuisance abatement laws on the books

from > The City of Pasedena

Safe Streets Now!

Violence. Noise. Garbage. Vandalism. Prostitution. Speeding Cars. If you’ve ever lived near a public nuisance, you know how distressing and disruptive its presence can be.

Many communities are traumatized by public nuisances, such as drug trafficking, and the crime and violence associated with these activities. Open drug markets flourish as neighborhood residents witness and endure the encroaching blight. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough police and city resources to pursue every public nuisance in every neighborhood. However you and your neighbors can shut down the whole operation on your own by getting the property declared a “public nuisance” and, if necessary, taking the owner of the property to Small Claims Court.

What is a Public Nuisance?
A public nuisance, according to state law, is anything that is:

Injurious to health
Indecent to the senses
Unlawfully impeding free use of the streets
Obstructing free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property

Why do we need Safe Streets Now!?
With Safe Streets Now! the residents come together to de­fine the standards of conduct for their neighborhood and enforce those standards at the neighborhood level. Some people view this as a community policing tool while others see it as a neighborhood and resident empowerment tool.

Is Safe Streets Now! Going to Make a Difference?
We believe Safe Streets Now! will be a valuable addition to the ongoing work of the City’s Police Department, Prosecutor’s Office, Councilmembers and Field Representatives, the Neighborhood Outreach Team, and the Human Services and Recreation Department. In over 800 cases where the Safe Streets Now! program was used, 80% of the cases successfully closed down targeted properties without going to court. Additionally, all cases taken to court have also been settled in favor of the neighborhoods and the Safe Streets Now! program.

How does Safe Streets Now! Work?
Safe Streets Now! is a step-by-step process that residents can use to address public nuisances in their neighborhoods. In Pasadena, Safe Streets Now! will include a part­nership between neighbors, police, city staff, and community-based organization representatives. Safe Streets Now! began in Oakland, California in 1989 and is a nationally recognized program.

Safe Streets Now! uses a State of California nuisance abatement law. This law is at the heart of the program. It affirms that residents have a right to fully enjoy the use of their homes in peace. The process for Safe Streets Now! is straightforward and includes the following steps:

Identify property creating the public nuisance.
Take notes on nuisance.
Phone each incidence to the police.
Write ‘demand letter’ to the property owner and threaten to take the owner to Small Claims Court if he or she does not correct the nuisance. (The majority of cases never make it to court, most landlords voluntarily remove the problem tenants from their properties after receiving the demand letter.)
Take the landlord to Small Claims Court. The plaintiffs (neighborhood residents) file a joint suit. It costs $75 (which can be waived) per plaintiff to file and each plaintiff can sue for up to $7,500. No attorneys may be used by either party in a small claims trial. Court dates are set within 30 days of the filing and judgments are issued within 30 days of the trial. Small Claims Court is swift and inexpensive.

What About Retaliation? Will I Be Safe?
Safe Streets Now! is a non-violent, non-confrontational way to rid communities of public nuisances such as drug and gang houses. Residents are safe because they will never confront or contact the gang members or drug dealers directly when documenting the problems. They contact other neighbors and the police by telephone. The demand letter includes a Pasadena Safe Streets Now! address, the name of the facilitator as the contact person, and will is sent directly to the landlord along with the residents’ documentation.

Molly Wetzel’s program Safe Streets Now has been so successful, that it prompted an in depth study funded by the US Department of Justice

There are even instructional videos on Youtube on how to organize and make landlords responsible

SRO (single room occupancy hotels) in San Francisco are NOT exempt from these nuisance laws, and neither are the non profits that run many of them. The same laws have actually been used in San Francisco before, at one SRO, except it was never identified by name until now

In 1995, Antoinetta Stadlman, who is now an employee of the same Randy Shaw used this same resource to gather several neighbors and go after the landlord and won several thousand dollars in court. This is mentioned in this article in the SF Weekly

What has never been mentioned before, is that Stadlman had originally talked to the same Molly Wetzel to help start the organization process after reading about her Safe Streets Now in the paper back in 1995. More than 15 years later, the same Antoinetta Stadlman, has recently identified and made public identical issues in Randy Shaws own buildings

Antoinetta Stadlman has lived in the Baldwin House hotel since 1991. By 1995, she was fed up with its condition. Clued in by a newspaper article to a law that allows neighbors to lodge nuisance claims against property owners who allow illegal or disturbing activities to continue unabated, Stadlman and 14 other tenants took Baldwin House owner Nick Patel to small-claims court and won $5,000 each, the maximum allowable under the law.

Patel appealed the decision to Superior Court. In Superior Court, unlike small-claims court, lawyers are more or less required. Stadlman called around. A private lawyer said he’d take the case — for $25,000, or 30 percent of the overall settlement. Stadlman thought that was too expensive, so she asked the Tenderloin Housing Clinic for help.

“Randy said he’d do it,” Stadlman says. But not for free.
Specifically, Stadlman says, Shaw offered her a contingency-fee arrangement: We handle the suit for you, and we get 25 percent of the settlement, up to $20,000. And Stadlman is grateful for that — “They gave me a $5,000 break,” she says, comparing the THC’s contingency rate to the private lawyer’s. But still, she decided to continue looking for a lawyer who would take the case for free.

Shaw says the fees were necessary because of the amount of work the case demanded. Generally, when a lawyer takes a case on a contingency basis, he must win the case (or win a settlement) in order to be paid. If the lawyer loses, then neither the lawyer nor the law firm gets any money.

In the 17 years since 1995, Randy Shaw has become a landlord himself of sixteen different SRO’s in the Tenderloin, Mid market, and Mission neighborhoods, so he would certainly know about this, since he was involved with it 17 years ago, but he has never mentioned this publicly in his The reason is obvious. Because Tenderloin Housing Clinic is the largest contractor in the city of San Francisco to house so called ‘hard core homeless’, many of them still on dope, and therefore a huge liability in a case like this. This is also why the City of San Francisco refuses to run these housing facilities themselves, because of the huge liability due to the nuisance…and instead contracts all of it out to private non profits

No competent attorney (Randy Shaw) in his right mind who runs such a large organization of high liability clients would ever admit this publicly, which is why you will never see this posted at

And now you know the real meaning of a massive ‘containment zone’ in the heart of San Francisco, funded by you..

(even worse is state privacy laws regarding welfare that applies to such non profits (State of California welfare and institutions code – reference > – as caretakers, which in itself is a highly questionable practice – simply dumping mental patients in SRO’s)

This is just one part of the many buildings in San Francisco that could be a source of nuisance. It doesn’t have to be in the Tenderloin, Soma, Mid Market or Mission problem areas, it could be anywhere in the city

The website to identify who the owners are of any property in San Francisco is the assessors office


Another early article from 1989

Yep, it was San Francisco airport that started it all back in the 1980’s. Ironic that it has almost never been mentioned in San Francisco itself. But since San Francisco leaders have spent over two decades moving ‘the worst of the worst’ out of outlying neighborhoods and into the Mid market and Tenderloin and Mission neighborhoods, it’s not likely you’ll ever hear more than crickets about this in the press

However, problems at the SRO’s have been reported as with the undercover video scandal

According to SFPD’s Department of Emergency Management, police have been called to the Henry Hotel 143 times since early November, an average of just more than one call per day. Of seven residential hotels in the area The San Francisco Examiner inquired about, only one other, the Seneca Hotel, was the source of more calls: 287.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner:

The Seneca being one of Randy Shaws managed buildings. There are also crime statistics available, some of which are available by bulding adress

Posted in mid market, San Francisco, Tenderloin Housing Clinic | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment
« Older
Newer »